Disposed

Rudresh Kumar Nigam @ Rudresh Nigam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2024/5428/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court showed prima facie case against the applicant in a beat the charge sheet 135 Electricity Act 2003. It declined quashing prayer but permitted filing a discharge application via counsel with directions for expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

Applicant permitted to move discharge application within four weeks; stay on coercive steps; prayer for quashing declined.

Rudresh Kumar Nigam @ Rudresh Nigam Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:79783

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5428 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rudresh Kumar Nigam @ Rudresh Nigam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sagar Singh,Shri Ram Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the charge sheet No.1, dated 7.10.2023 in S.S.T. No.528/2024 and the case bearing title 'State Vs. Rudresh Kumar Nigam in Case Crime No.2456/2020, under Sections 135 of Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Anti Power Theft, Station Unnao.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicants submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is also contended that Investigating OfÏcer without applying his mind, has wrongly submitted the charge sheet arraying the name of the applicant as an accused. In view of above, this application deserves to be allowed.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. urged that there is sufÏcient evidence against the applicant and there is no occasion for quashing of the impugned summoning order and proceedings of aforesaid case.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, a perusal of record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, a prima facie, case is made out against the applicant. Therefore, prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as proceedings of aforesaid case, is declined.

¶11

After arguing the matter up to some length, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he

¶12

does not want to press this application on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that he may be permitted to move discharge application through counsel and suitable directions may be issued for expeditious disposal of the same.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has no objection in grant of aforesaid prayer.

¶14

In view of above, it is provided that applicant is permitted to move his discharge applications through counsel within four weeks' from today and, in case, any such application is being filed, the same shall be heard and decided expeditiously after hearing the parties, in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order.

¶15

Till the aforesaid period of four weeks' and during the pendency of discharge application, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶16

In case of failure on the part of applicant in moving the discharge application within the aforesaid period, he will not be entitled to the benefit of this order.

¶17

It is clarified that after disposal of discharge application, the applicant will be subject to regular process of the court concerned, including bail etc.

¶18

With the above directions, this application is disposed of .

¶19

Order Date :- 2.12.2024 Gaurav/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rudresh Kumar Nigam @ Rudresh Nigam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudresh Kumar Nigam @ Rudresh Nigam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abhilash Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rohit @ Rohit Upadhyay and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and Another

Vinod Kumar Yadav vs Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Milk Commissioner / Registrar, Dugdha Sahkari Samitiyan, Lko. and Another

Umesh Chaudharee @ Malhoo Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

M/S Bajpayee Printers - Saurabh Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Swami Nath Shukla and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another